Defence lawyer calls Puneet Puneet's hit-and-run 'just an accident'

By Amrit Dhillon

2 June 2018 — 11:03pm

"Just an accident", is how the defence lawyer for hit-and-run driver Puneet Puneet described the death of Queensland student Dean Hofstee, aged 19, in 2008 when Puneet smashed into him after drinking and driving at high speed in Melbourne.

Speaking in a Delhi court hearing the Puneet extradition case, Kanhaiya Kumar Singhal said Puneet’s crime was "not heinous in nature". He went on: “Yes a life was taken but it was not intentional. Accidents happen. It’s not as though it was a rape or murder,” he said.

At this point in the proceedings in Patiala District Court, the prosecution lawyer Bhaskar Vali strongly countered the observation, saying sternly: “This is not a defence – ‘accidents happen’. He was drinking and driving and driving at 150 kilometres an hour. Why didn’t he take a taxi? Even India now has tough drunk driving laws. There have to be consequences and repercussions to every man’s act," said Mr Vali.

Some heated exchanges took place before Justice Gurmohina Kaur, who is hearing the case. The issue at hand was the defence counsel’s request for an inquiry to take place into Puneet’s mental state. Mr Singhal said Puneet was a mental health patient and that, on the grounds of medical unfitness, the extradition case against him should be withdrawn.

Advertisement

Puneet fled to India to avoid being sentenced in Australia. He was a 19-year-old learner driver when he killed Hofstee and also seriously injured Clancy Coker in the same crash. He was on bail and awaiting sentence after pleading guilty to culpable driving when he fled Australia in 2009 using a friend's passport. He was arrested four years later in India, on his wedding day.

On Friday, Puneet appeared in court wearing a bandage on his head after allegedly hitting his head against a grill. On previous hearings, he has appeared wearing a surgical mask, sitting in a wheelchair, and gazing blankly into space.

At Saturday’s hearing, as Mr Singhal tried to convince the judge that Puneet had been insane since 2016 and that his condition could be verified by psychiatrists at a hospital at Panchkula in north India, where Puneet lives, Puneet sat with his head down, his hair falling over his face, and smiling. He wore no bandage. Earlier, Mr Singhal has cited kidney and liver ailments as reasons against the extradition.

The gist of Mr Singhal’s argument was that under the extradition treaty between India and Australia, the mental state of the person concerned can be a reason for not extraditing him or her.

He cited clauses in Indian law which require a magistrate to inquire into the plaintiff’s mental state. “A magistrate under the Delhi High Court rules is bound to hold an inquiry – not ‘may’ or ‘should’ but is ‘bound’ to look into his medical condition," he said.

To back his assertion, Mr Singhal said he had jail and medical records to prove that Puneet was mentally unfit to be extradited and that doctors had advised that he "should not stay alone and should be under constant medical supervision". In an earlier hearing, he said Puneet had swallowed pesticide in an attempt to commit suicide.

“If you don’t trust the medical certificates of the doctors , then by all means let Puneet be examined at any hospital of your choice," Mr Singhal told Justice Kaur. “But we must conduct an inquiry into his mental state”.

Mr Vali said that these arguments were invalid and urged Justice Kaur to dismiss the request. He accused the defence of conflating Indian law with the entirely separate provisions of the extradition treaty. The latter, he said, had specific provisions and procedures. Under these, the defence’s request for an inquiry into Puneet’s mental state was simply not permissible.

He stressed to Justice Kaur that the application for an inquiry was yet another "delaying tactic" by Puneet, who, he said, had "habitually taken advantage of, and misled, this court and who had jumped bail in Australia after pleading guilty".

“If, as claimed, he needs constant medical supervision, then why hasn’t he been admitted into a hospital for treatment?," asked Mr Vali. He added tersely that if Puneet needed treatment for insanity, then Australia had psychiatrists too.